ArtForum Ads Hit a New Low

Short of a slightly different type design, the above image represents what you’ll see in the latest issue of ArtForum. I understand the magazine needs to make money, but I don’t think it’s asking too much to set a few standards in regards to the type of advertising they allow to go to print. For example, they might think to refuse the woman taking the inflatable sex doll pose. There’s more than one way to sell Men’s perfume, and it doesn’t have to involve the sexualization of women.

Update: For those readers interested in finding the ad, it’s placed along side John Water’s top ten list, which makes it appear ironic. In fact, it was my interest in solving this question that lead me to the website — if you think the promotion in the magazine is bad, the website flash intro closes on an image far worse — I took the time to make a screengrab of that as well.

What do you all expect in a world where American Apparel makes amateur porn into advertising for tshirts?

The thing is that rallying against it doesn’t do anything productive. It’s like getting angry because a bully is teasing you–it makes it worse.

Paddy, I deeply respect you and your effort. But you added to this campaign’s shock value by registering your disapproval. You played into their hand. You rebroadcasted something that was tasteless enough not to ever go to print in the *first* place.

What do you all expect in a world where American Apparel makes amateur porn into advertising for tshirts?

The thing is that rallying against it doesn’t do anything productive. It’s like getting angry because a bully is teasing you–it makes it worse.

Paddy, I deeply respect you and your effort. But you added to this campaign’s shock value by registering your disapproval. You played into their hand. You rebroadcasted something that was tasteless enough not to ever go to print in the *first* place.

What do you all expect in a world where American Apparel makes amateur porn into advertising for tshirts?

The thing is that rallying against it doesn’t do anything productive. It’s like getting angry because a bully is teasing you–it makes it worse.

Paddy, I deeply respect you and your effort. But you added to this campaign’s shock value by registering your disapproval. You played into their hand. You rebroadcasted something that was tasteless enough not to ever go to print in the *first* place.

Deborah: I disagree. You can’t ignore social problems, and these images represent a system of gender relations that is firmly in place. This is one such instance, and I’m citing it here to evoke those issues. Think of Abu Grahib – those images were only documents of something that was taking place regardless of what the majority of people in this country knew. This image too, is a document of something far more abstract, but something very real.

Deborah: I disagree. You can’t ignore social problems, and these images represent a system of gender relations that is firmly in place. This is one such instance, and I’m citing it here to evoke those issues. Think of Abu Grahib – those images were only documents of something that was taking place regardless of what the majority of people in this country knew. This image too, is a document of something far more abstract, but something very real.

Deborah: I disagree. You can’t ignore social problems, and these images represent a system of gender relations that is firmly in place. This is one such instance, and I’m citing it here to evoke those issues. Think of Abu Grahib – those images were only documents of something that was taking place regardless of what the majority of people in this country knew. This image too, is a document of something far more abstract, but something very real.

i agree with paddy. tastless stuff from a certifiable narcissist who thinks his own chest hair will sell more product – and perhaps in this paris hilton obsessed world it does. i suggest a complete boycott of tom ford products (gucci?) for as long as the designer produces as a thank you tom ford for giving people more reason to think we are a culture worthy of annihilation.

i agree with paddy. tastless stuff from a certifiable narcissist who thinks his own chest hair will sell more product – and perhaps in this paris hilton obsessed world it does. i suggest a complete boycott of tom ford products (gucci?) for as long as the designer produces as a thank you tom ford for giving people more reason to think we are a culture worthy of annihilation.

i agree with paddy. tastless stuff from a certifiable narcissist who thinks his own chest hair will sell more product – and perhaps in this paris hilton obsessed world it does. i suggest a complete boycott of tom ford products (gucci?) for as long as the designer produces as a thank you tom ford for giving people more reason to think we are a culture worthy of annihilation.

1. I have a bias here–I am thinking about this as someone who has worked on a lot of construction sites with a lot of neanderthals. So when I see these ads, I see a room full of manchildren rubbing their peepees and hoping that some woman figure who is in some way motherlike comes along to be *super sexy* by reinforcing the original deed *and* shaming them at the same time

(!!!)

Because that’s how people who think this kind of imagery is in any way appropriate think.

My bottom line? I don’t want to be a part of the fantasy. On a jobsite, it’s much more effective to ignore this kind of stuff, and then totally emasculate the offender in an unrelated way. Preferably over lunch. With a bunch of other guys around. With so much wit and such great timing that everyone sides with you.

In the real world, I think that this stuff will go away if women ignore it and just focus on totally kicking ass.

2. What kind of social problem is this? Or, when can women just relax and actually *use* feminism instead of defending turf all the time?

Don’t get me wrong–I am an ardent feminist because I have to be. I work with men doing work men are supposed to be doing. In my experience, even men who have never been to college have heard by now that objectifying women is bad.

So when really immature men publish crap like this, they know it’s bad and are teasing you and all other women, and like all teasers, are specifically looking for a response.

And when we give it to them, it kinda proves that the matter is open for discussion.

The fact that is that it’s tasteless to sell men’s perfume with the blowup doll pose or the shaved crotch pose, is *not* really up for discussion. And if the creator of this ad is not going for a secondary boost from the Gloria Steinem crowd, then the only remaining message is about selling cologne to men who don’t have any real experiences with real women, and have some anxiety about that.

But real men do have experiences with real women all the time, and are much more aware of the fact that women are human beings than we give them credit for.

It’s a stupid, cynical ad that only works when it’s “activated” by sexism. I guess my point is… for the sake of womankind, why not just let it fall on its face?

1. I have a bias here–I am thinking about this as someone who has worked on a lot of construction sites with a lot of neanderthals. So when I see these ads, I see a room full of manchildren rubbing their peepees and hoping that some woman figure who is in some way motherlike comes along to be *super sexy* by reinforcing the original deed *and* shaming them at the same time

(!!!)

Because that’s how people who think this kind of imagery is in any way appropriate think.

My bottom line? I don’t want to be a part of the fantasy. On a jobsite, it’s much more effective to ignore this kind of stuff, and then totally emasculate the offender in an unrelated way. Preferably over lunch. With a bunch of other guys around. With so much wit and such great timing that everyone sides with you.

In the real world, I think that this stuff will go away if women ignore it and just focus on totally kicking ass.

2. What kind of social problem is this? Or, when can women just relax and actually *use* feminism instead of defending turf all the time?

Don’t get me wrong–I am an ardent feminist because I have to be. I work with men doing work men are supposed to be doing. In my experience, even men who have never been to college have heard by now that objectifying women is bad.

So when really immature men publish crap like this, they know it’s bad and are teasing you and all other women, and like all teasers, are specifically looking for a response.

And when we give it to them, it kinda proves that the matter is open for discussion.

The fact that is that it’s tasteless to sell men’s perfume with the blowup doll pose or the shaved crotch pose, is *not* really up for discussion. And if the creator of this ad is not going for a secondary boost from the Gloria Steinem crowd, then the only remaining message is about selling cologne to men who don’t have any real experiences with real women, and have some anxiety about that.

But real men do have experiences with real women all the time, and are much more aware of the fact that women are human beings than we give them credit for.

It’s a stupid, cynical ad that only works when it’s “activated” by sexism. I guess my point is… for the sake of womankind, why not just let it fall on its face?

1. I have a bias here–I am thinking about this as someone who has worked on a lot of construction sites with a lot of neanderthals. So when I see these ads, I see a room full of manchildren rubbing their peepees and hoping that some woman figure who is in some way motherlike comes along to be *super sexy* by reinforcing the original deed *and* shaming them at the same time

(!!!)

Because that’s how people who think this kind of imagery is in any way appropriate think.

My bottom line? I don’t want to be a part of the fantasy. On a jobsite, it’s much more effective to ignore this kind of stuff, and then totally emasculate the offender in an unrelated way. Preferably over lunch. With a bunch of other guys around. With so much wit and such great timing that everyone sides with you.

In the real world, I think that this stuff will go away if women ignore it and just focus on totally kicking ass.

2. What kind of social problem is this? Or, when can women just relax and actually *use* feminism instead of defending turf all the time?

Don’t get me wrong–I am an ardent feminist because I have to be. I work with men doing work men are supposed to be doing. In my experience, even men who have never been to college have heard by now that objectifying women is bad.

So when really immature men publish crap like this, they know it’s bad and are teasing you and all other women, and like all teasers, are specifically looking for a response.

And when we give it to them, it kinda proves that the matter is open for discussion.

The fact that is that it’s tasteless to sell men’s perfume with the blowup doll pose or the shaved crotch pose, is *not* really up for discussion. And if the creator of this ad is not going for a secondary boost from the Gloria Steinem crowd, then the only remaining message is about selling cologne to men who don’t have any real experiences with real women, and have some anxiety about that.

But real men do have experiences with real women all the time, and are much more aware of the fact that women are human beings than we give them credit for.

It’s a stupid, cynical ad that only works when it’s “activated” by sexism. I guess my point is… for the sake of womankind, why not just let it fall on its face?

Hi. Deborah: Avoiding confrontations and neanderthalism on a real-life job site might be the best strategy for coping with gender inequity and light sexual harassment, but I think that those standards can’t be applied to what’s being discussed here.

An advertisement isn’t a job site. It’s a one-way communique, an image dispatched into the world of signs that creates or extends the visual and virtual presence of a product — in this case tom ford’s new cologne — by piggy-backing on an ad that uses a female body to make an image for male consumption. That’s the problem — making images out of women for male eyes, and it has been a problem for a long time. Neither the photographer nor the advertiser was looking for a response, a retort, or a reaction from any hypothetical woman; on the contrary, it was a case of men wanting to provoke only a male response (of desire or interest), while women were completely out of the equation. If women ignore the problem as you suggest, what will keep men from continuing to make such images out of women’s bodies for male eyes?

I would also suggest that Terry Richardson’s current popularity in the 20-something constituancy has a lot to do with a backlash against the hard-won fights over identity politics in the 80s, and the corporate appropriation of those politics and representational strategies in the 90s (ie: Nike using Tiger Woods quotes about race as wall texts in their stores, product brands being targeted for smaller, specialized minority demographics, etc. See: Naomi Klein’s NO LOGO). Ultimately I think Richardson’s popularity could be a bad thing, and in fact has to do with that generation’s new flirtatious (and disguised) interest in retrograde and conservative politics, for many years off-limits (in this country) to culture producing, creative class urban youth.

The biggest issue here is one of accountability and the reform of public standards of taste, not, as you suggest, a taunting game or oppositional dialog.

Hi. Deborah: Avoiding confrontations and neanderthalism on a real-life job site might be the best strategy for coping with gender inequity and light sexual harassment, but I think that those standards can’t be applied to what’s being discussed here.

An advertisement isn’t a job site. It’s a one-way communique, an image dispatched into the world of signs that creates or extends the visual and virtual presence of a product — in this case tom ford’s new cologne — by piggy-backing on an ad that uses a female body to make an image for male consumption. That’s the problem — making images out of women for male eyes, and it has been a problem for a long time. Neither the photographer nor the advertiser was looking for a response, a retort, or a reaction from any hypothetical woman; on the contrary, it was a case of men wanting to provoke only a male response (of desire or interest), while women were completely out of the equation. If women ignore the problem as you suggest, what will keep men from continuing to make such images out of women’s bodies for male eyes?

I would also suggest that Terry Richardson’s current popularity in the 20-something constituancy has a lot to do with a backlash against the hard-won fights over identity politics in the 80s, and the corporate appropriation of those politics and representational strategies in the 90s (ie: Nike using Tiger Woods quotes about race as wall texts in their stores, product brands being targeted for smaller, specialized minority demographics, etc. See: Naomi Klein’s NO LOGO). Ultimately I think Richardson’s popularity could be a bad thing, and in fact has to do with that generation’s new flirtatious (and disguised) interest in retrograde and conservative politics, for many years off-limits (in this country) to culture producing, creative class urban youth.

The biggest issue here is one of accountability and the reform of public standards of taste, not, as you suggest, a taunting game or oppositional dialog.

Hi. Deborah: Avoiding confrontations and neanderthalism on a real-life job site might be the best strategy for coping with gender inequity and light sexual harassment, but I think that those standards can’t be applied to what’s being discussed here.

An advertisement isn’t a job site. It’s a one-way communique, an image dispatched into the world of signs that creates or extends the visual and virtual presence of a product — in this case tom ford’s new cologne — by piggy-backing on an ad that uses a female body to make an image for male consumption. That’s the problem — making images out of women for male eyes, and it has been a problem for a long time. Neither the photographer nor the advertiser was looking for a response, a retort, or a reaction from any hypothetical woman; on the contrary, it was a case of men wanting to provoke only a male response (of desire or interest), while women were completely out of the equation. If women ignore the problem as you suggest, what will keep men from continuing to make such images out of women’s bodies for male eyes?

I would also suggest that Terry Richardson’s current popularity in the 20-something constituancy has a lot to do with a backlash against the hard-won fights over identity politics in the 80s, and the corporate appropriation of those politics and representational strategies in the 90s (ie: Nike using Tiger Woods quotes about race as wall texts in their stores, product brands being targeted for smaller, specialized minority demographics, etc. See: Naomi Klein’s NO LOGO). Ultimately I think Richardson’s popularity could be a bad thing, and in fact has to do with that generation’s new flirtatious (and disguised) interest in retrograde and conservative politics, for many years off-limits (in this country) to culture producing, creative class urban youth.

The biggest issue here is one of accountability and the reform of public standards of taste, not, as you suggest, a taunting game or oppositional dialog.

Deborah has it right when she describes the ad as “cynical,” but not when she describes it as “stupid.” It seems to be an incredibly savvy image that is not in any way intended to *actually* arouse male (or lesbian) desire. The ad seems to be toying with the conventions of sexualized commerce – to read it literally is a mistake. Its cynicism functions like the meta-racism or meta-bigotry of Sarah Silverman and Sascha Cohen.

Deborah has it right when she describes the ad as “cynical,” but not when she describes it as “stupid.” It seems to be an incredibly savvy image that is not in any way intended to *actually* arouse male (or lesbian) desire. The ad seems to be toying with the conventions of sexualized commerce – to read it literally is a mistake. Its cynicism functions like the meta-racism or meta-bigotry of Sarah Silverman and Sascha Cohen.

Deborah has it right when she describes the ad as “cynical,” but not when she describes it as “stupid.” It seems to be an incredibly savvy image that is not in any way intended to *actually* arouse male (or lesbian) desire. The ad seems to be toying with the conventions of sexualized commerce – to read it literally is a mistake. Its cynicism functions like the meta-racism or meta-bigotry of Sarah Silverman and Sascha Cohen.

Seems this is just the normal on goings of capital and heternormativity, the glimmer twins of consumption, afterall, major buyers of art are the hedge fund operators. The vessel of male spirit, in all it’s piss stained glory, in the first photo reenacts a titty fucking fantasy or territorial pissings. In the second, the model’s fingers, if moved lower, opens her labials, her offices, as Marx once mentioned, for penetration, both photo’s indicating the grand presence of the the dreaded phallic signifier. So, obviously, we have the priviledging of the heteromale superhero. Lesbians need not apply. Heightening the spectacle, the graphixxx people knocked off the highlights on the flaming nails, too threatening to the sacred penis, and gathered them around her throat, emphasising vulnerability and access to her body, as if choking, for instance, might be a good thing. In the presentation here, she has three hands!

Should AFC rant against this? Of course. Does it echo free advertisement for the ad and Artforum? Of course. Is doing so like Charlie Finch ‘raging’ against Koons/Hirst all the while giving them promotion? Is this as token and feeble as Saltz pointing out the lack of female representation? That’s a hard one. Wall Street males will argue, Look, we have a right to present our views in the market place of ideas like anybody else, the ad gave employ to lot’s of people (the opportunity/jobs nauseum of republicans), and it’s just fantasy, it’s not a real photo. If the ad were a painting by Lisa Yuskasavage or Marilyn Minter, you’d (AFC) have no problem; relax and enjoy the visuals. What if the borrowed body was black or a she male? Basically, everthing is okay if it’s creating capital. I’m not sure which is more dangerous, the idea that women’s bodies are still fodder for males or that everthing is okay as long as it’s in the name of money. Maybe that’s what would have saved Serrano’s Piss Christ photo, if it were an ad for a line of designer crucifixes for Christ sake.

One curious thing though, the bottle in the first photo, cradled, I guess, is crooked. This renders the product unstable, usually not a good thing. Even Duchamp in his blasphemy with gender, Belle Helene, got the product right.

Seems this is just the normal on goings of capital and heternormativity, the glimmer twins of consumption, afterall, major buyers of art are the hedge fund operators. The vessel of male spirit, in all it’s piss stained glory, in the first photo reenacts a titty fucking fantasy or territorial pissings. In the second, the model’s fingers, if moved lower, opens her labials, her offices, as Marx once mentioned, for penetration, both photo’s indicating the grand presence of the the dreaded phallic signifier. So, obviously, we have the priviledging of the heteromale superhero. Lesbians need not apply. Heightening the spectacle, the graphixxx people knocked off the highlights on the flaming nails, too threatening to the sacred penis, and gathered them around her throat, emphasising vulnerability and access to her body, as if choking, for instance, might be a good thing. In the presentation here, she has three hands!

Should AFC rant against this? Of course. Does it echo free advertisement for the ad and Artforum? Of course. Is doing so like Charlie Finch ‘raging’ against Koons/Hirst all the while giving them promotion? Is this as token and feeble as Saltz pointing out the lack of female representation? That’s a hard one. Wall Street males will argue, Look, we have a right to present our views in the market place of ideas like anybody else, the ad gave employ to lot’s of people (the opportunity/jobs nauseum of republicans), and it’s just fantasy, it’s not a real photo. If the ad were a painting by Lisa Yuskasavage or Marilyn Minter, you’d (AFC) have no problem; relax and enjoy the visuals. What if the borrowed body was black or a she male? Basically, everthing is okay if it’s creating capital. I’m not sure which is more dangerous, the idea that women’s bodies are still fodder for males or that everthing is okay as long as it’s in the name of money. Maybe that’s what would have saved Serrano’s Piss Christ photo, if it were an ad for a line of designer crucifixes for Christ sake.

One curious thing though, the bottle in the first photo, cradled, I guess, is crooked. This renders the product unstable, usually not a good thing. Even Duchamp in his blasphemy with gender, Belle Helene, got the product right.

Seems this is just the normal on goings of capital and heternormativity, the glimmer twins of consumption, afterall, major buyers of art are the hedge fund operators. The vessel of male spirit, in all it’s piss stained glory, in the first photo reenacts a titty fucking fantasy or territorial pissings. In the second, the model’s fingers, if moved lower, opens her labials, her offices, as Marx once mentioned, for penetration, both photo’s indicating the grand presence of the the dreaded phallic signifier. So, obviously, we have the priviledging of the heteromale superhero. Lesbians need not apply. Heightening the spectacle, the graphixxx people knocked off the highlights on the flaming nails, too threatening to the sacred penis, and gathered them around her throat, emphasising vulnerability and access to her body, as if choking, for instance, might be a good thing. In the presentation here, she has three hands!

Should AFC rant against this? Of course. Does it echo free advertisement for the ad and Artforum? Of course. Is doing so like Charlie Finch ‘raging’ against Koons/Hirst all the while giving them promotion? Is this as token and feeble as Saltz pointing out the lack of female representation? That’s a hard one. Wall Street males will argue, Look, we have a right to present our views in the market place of ideas like anybody else, the ad gave employ to lot’s of people (the opportunity/jobs nauseum of republicans), and it’s just fantasy, it’s not a real photo. If the ad were a painting by Lisa Yuskasavage or Marilyn Minter, you’d (AFC) have no problem; relax and enjoy the visuals. What if the borrowed body was black or a she male? Basically, everthing is okay if it’s creating capital. I’m not sure which is more dangerous, the idea that women’s bodies are still fodder for males or that everthing is okay as long as it’s in the name of money. Maybe that’s what would have saved Serrano’s Piss Christ photo, if it were an ad for a line of designer crucifixes for Christ sake.

One curious thing though, the bottle in the first photo, cradled, I guess, is crooked. This renders the product unstable, usually not a good thing. Even Duchamp in his blasphemy with gender, Belle Helene, got the product right.

When Tom Ford straps tits to his own hairy chest to sell his own perfume, then it makes sense to talk about this ad in terms of Lynda Benglis.

As someone who understands and shares Oly’s love of sex and nakedness, I can also buy AFC’s assertion that this isn’t really about sex, but about power. I think women are sexy when they have heads, when they are more than a hole (mouth) and a slot (cleavage).

Leisurearts hits it when they assert that it is not a stupid ad, and I am very willing to concede that point. It’s calculating and will totally succeed. But I don’t see any visual signifiers (aside from its placement next to John Waters’ Top 10) that give me any reason to think it’s ironic, meta, or Sarah Silvermanesque. In fact, I think that the John Waters placement does more harm than good on that axis… he loves real drag queens and real kink, not Sarah Silverman “kink.”

When Tom Ford straps tits to his own hairy chest to sell his own perfume, then it makes sense to talk about this ad in terms of Lynda Benglis.

As someone who understands and shares Oly’s love of sex and nakedness, I can also buy AFC’s assertion that this isn’t really about sex, but about power. I think women are sexy when they have heads, when they are more than a hole (mouth) and a slot (cleavage).

Leisurearts hits it when they assert that it is not a stupid ad, and I am very willing to concede that point. It’s calculating and will totally succeed. But I don’t see any visual signifiers (aside from its placement next to John Waters’ Top 10) that give me any reason to think it’s ironic, meta, or Sarah Silvermanesque. In fact, I think that the John Waters placement does more harm than good on that axis… he loves real drag queens and real kink, not Sarah Silverman “kink.”

Wait a minute, I don’t remember Benglis selling anything but seizing (squeezing a fake dick). R we talking about the dildo photo? There’s 2much photoshop on the cologne ad 2b remotely like the Benglis thing. Rosalind Krauss is a university academic. I don’t buy into her model of art history, especially when u read what artist’s have said about their work.

1. Why is anyone going to Artforum? That is for university people and the best works in the 20C. have been by non university people. That should tell u something.

2. “The ad seems to be toying with the conventions of sexualized commerce – to read it literally is a mistake.” I’m not buying that for a second, nor that Silverman is totally ‘meta’, appropriating racialized vehicles for comedy commodities is harldy ‘after’, ‘beyond’ anything. These are motivated to deliver a prescribed narration of acquiescence that reenforces the taxonomies of race. The only comedy here is to assume that the work is so innocuous.

An often cited book, alluding to the university mindset stated above, McClintock’s Imperial Leather begins stamping the liminal uncertainties of male explorers as porno tropic, a great term, meaning wherever males waffle geographically, they womanized the unknown territories w/ female imagery, basically asserting the essentialist and essentializing positioning of women. The LaCan Can-Can. I think the cologne does exactly that, maps out the taxonomies of heteroshit.

The good news: the heightened shrill sound of this piece tells me males need to try harder than b4.

Wait a minute, I don’t remember Benglis selling anything but seizing (squeezing a fake dick). R we talking about the dildo photo? There’s 2much photoshop on the cologne ad 2b remotely like the Benglis thing. Rosalind Krauss is a university academic. I don’t buy into her model of art history, especially when u read what artist’s have said about their work.

1. Why is anyone going to Artforum? That is for university people and the best works in the 20C. have been by non university people. That should tell u something.

2. “The ad seems to be toying with the conventions of sexualized commerce – to read it literally is a mistake.” I’m not buying that for a second, nor that Silverman is totally ‘meta’, appropriating racialized vehicles for comedy commodities is harldy ‘after’, ‘beyond’ anything. These are motivated to deliver a prescribed narration of acquiescence that reenforces the taxonomies of race. The only comedy here is to assume that the work is so innocuous.

An often cited book, alluding to the university mindset stated above, McClintock’s Imperial Leather begins stamping the liminal uncertainties of male explorers as porno tropic, a great term, meaning wherever males waffle geographically, they womanized the unknown territories w/ female imagery, basically asserting the essentialist and essentializing positioning of women. The LaCan Can-Can. I think the cologne does exactly that, maps out the taxonomies of heteroshit.

The good news: the heightened shrill sound of this piece tells me males need to try harder than b4.

I’m in complete agreement with Denny on this one. Benglis wasn’t trying to sell perfume for men, she had a feminist agenda. This does not. Richardson’s photograph is, in my opinion, as bad as it looks.

I’m in complete agreement with Denny on this one. Benglis wasn’t trying to sell perfume for men, she had a feminist agenda. This does not. Richardson’s photograph is, in my opinion, as bad as it looks.

Well she was selling something – her work. As I understand it, the ad she took out was to promote her show.

“appropriating racialized vehicles for comedy commodities is harldy â€˜afterâ€™, â€˜beyondâ€™ anything. These are motivated to deliver a prescribed narration of acquiescence that reenforces the taxonomies of race.”

So I’m assuming that Eddie Murphy, Margaret Cho, Richard Pryor, David Chappelle, Carlos Mencia, and the litany of other comics who use racist/sexist language are all promoting “acquiescence” rather than holding such tropes up for mockery? Good to know. I’ll stick to Jerry Seinfeld. Oh wait, he uses some bits around male/female differences. Guess he’s another pawn in the capitalist/heterosexist/racist/essentialist comic conspiracy…

“The only comedy here is to assume that the work is so innocuous.”

No, there is immense comedy in your hyperbole and highly paranoid/authoritarian pronouncements, not to mention your rambling non sequiturs.

Well she was selling something – her work. As I understand it, the ad she took out was to promote her show.

“appropriating racialized vehicles for comedy commodities is harldy â€˜afterâ€™, â€˜beyondâ€™ anything. These are motivated to deliver a prescribed narration of acquiescence that reenforces the taxonomies of race.”

So I’m assuming that Eddie Murphy, Margaret Cho, Richard Pryor, David Chappelle, Carlos Mencia, and the litany of other comics who use racist/sexist language are all promoting “acquiescence” rather than holding such tropes up for mockery? Good to know. I’ll stick to Jerry Seinfeld. Oh wait, he uses some bits around male/female differences. Guess he’s another pawn in the capitalist/heterosexist/racist/essentialist comic conspiracy…

“The only comedy here is to assume that the work is so innocuous.”

No, there is immense comedy in your hyperbole and highly paranoid/authoritarian pronouncements, not to mention your rambling non sequiturs.

It’s funny that the Lynda Benglis image everyone is referring to is reproduced in a Jonathan Monk / Yvon Lambert Paris ad on page 19. The connection is… tenuous at best? It seems to me this meta-discourse/blackface argument might just be an excuse to celebrate culture rather than get critical.

It’s funny that the Lynda Benglis image everyone is referring to is reproduced in a Jonathan Monk / Yvon Lambert Paris ad on page 19. The connection is… tenuous at best? It seems to me this meta-discourse/blackface argument might just be an excuse to celebrate culture rather than get critical.

I think the first one is offensive and the second one is hot. The first one showing the blow up doll look on her face – why not just use a blow up doll? The second one is more sculptural and the bottle looks more like a clitoris. The photo alludes to the mystery of a woman’s pleasure. I still don’t see how it intends to sell men’s cologne, but it’s still more interesting to me than the first. It would have been better to keep the second ad, toss the first and replace it with smooth, hairless, male anatomy used in a similar way. Perhaps with a more unique skin color, not as often seen in the ad world. Then, the whole thing would take on a larger, more complex theme.

I think the first one is offensive and the second one is hot. The first one showing the blow up doll look on her face – why not just use a blow up doll? The second one is more sculptural and the bottle looks more like a clitoris. The photo alludes to the mystery of a woman’s pleasure. I still don’t see how it intends to sell men’s cologne, but it’s still more interesting to me than the first. It would have been better to keep the second ad, toss the first and replace it with smooth, hairless, male anatomy used in a similar way. Perhaps with a more unique skin color, not as often seen in the ad world. Then, the whole thing would take on a larger, more complex theme.

I think the first one is offensive and the second one is hot. The first one showing the blow up doll look on her face – why not just use a blow up doll? The second one is more sculptural and the bottle looks more like a clitoris. The photo alludes to the mystery of a woman’s pleasure. I still don’t see how it intends to sell men’s cologne, but it’s still more interesting to me than the first. It would have been better to keep the second ad, toss the first and replace it with smooth, hairless, male anatomy used in a similar way. Perhaps with a more unique skin color, not as often seen in the ad world. Then, the whole thing would take on a larger, more complex theme.

For the record, I mentioned Benglis as a parallel not as a direct connection/reference to the Tom Ford ad.

My mention of “meta” critique is not an attempt to celebrate anything, but is an attempt to complicate the all-knowing, self-congratulatory nature of the so called critical position. I am suspicious of straightforward readings of how images operate – in this case, consumerism, human sexuality, and art history among many other fields are converging. It seems too easy to fall back on the exploitation of women riff. I am especially dubious of people who presume to know how something functions in a sexual economy – an incredibly complex milieu fraught with exceptions, contradictions and unknowns.

For the record, I mentioned Benglis as a parallel not as a direct connection/reference to the Tom Ford ad.

My mention of “meta” critique is not an attempt to celebrate anything, but is an attempt to complicate the all-knowing, self-congratulatory nature of the so called critical position. I am suspicious of straightforward readings of how images operate – in this case, consumerism, human sexuality, and art history among many other fields are converging. It seems too easy to fall back on the exploitation of women riff. I am especially dubious of people who presume to know how something functions in a sexual economy – an incredibly complex milieu fraught with exceptions, contradictions and unknowns.

For the record, I mentioned Benglis as a parallel not as a direct connection/reference to the Tom Ford ad.

My mention of “meta” critique is not an attempt to celebrate anything, but is an attempt to complicate the all-knowing, self-congratulatory nature of the so called critical position. I am suspicious of straightforward readings of how images operate – in this case, consumerism, human sexuality, and art history among many other fields are converging. It seems too easy to fall back on the exploitation of women riff. I am especially dubious of people who presume to know how something functions in a sexual economy – an incredibly complex milieu fraught with exceptions, contradictions and unknowns.

Sorry 2b so rambling w/ non sequiturs, but I was doing this at my leisure, it was just a ‘meta’ critique, not really serious. Next time I’ll have my paper topic and bibliography in on time. MLA okay? No need for the ad hominum heavy, although it kinda made my point.

Some think these photos are some kinda organic or natural similacra, some how ‘meta’ed thru media and repro. The Silverman’s/Chappelle’s use taxonomies of race to deliver u to product or to pay cable. So their appropriation of racial types is the product of their labor, which they sell to cable and we pay to see. Meta usually means like the old philosophy like the concept of mind, having neither material or location. So, this comedy is a social relation of exchange, and pretty goddam empirical, not meta.

Porn, Porn, and more Porn u Porny Pornificators. This scenario is pornish. I think I caused friction dragging on the priviledged access to the female body. I think we were assuming here the woman is a porn worker, paid for services, and as a body/worker/laborer is objectified and demonized. Therefore, not being a ‘real’ person, but a ‘meta’ person makes it discountable as not really real. How managerial, a tie as we say in the factory. The frosting of highlights courtesy of Photoshop adds to the masking. Once a male is delivered to the omniscient spectator, of course, the photo loses reference. The antiseptic cleanliness of the whole scene, yuk!

The idea that the bottom photo is a clit: Whoah, u got some klit there woman. But when does a large clit become a small penis? These and other intersex problems …

Sorry 2b so rambling w/ non sequiturs, but I was doing this at my leisure, it was just a ‘meta’ critique, not really serious. Next time I’ll have my paper topic and bibliography in on time. MLA okay? No need for the ad hominum heavy, although it kinda made my point.

Some think these photos are some kinda organic or natural similacra, some how ‘meta’ed thru media and repro. The Silverman’s/Chappelle’s use taxonomies of race to deliver u to product or to pay cable. So their appropriation of racial types is the product of their labor, which they sell to cable and we pay to see. Meta usually means like the old philosophy like the concept of mind, having neither material or location. So, this comedy is a social relation of exchange, and pretty goddam empirical, not meta.

Porn, Porn, and more Porn u Porny Pornificators. This scenario is pornish. I think I caused friction dragging on the priviledged access to the female body. I think we were assuming here the woman is a porn worker, paid for services, and as a body/worker/laborer is objectified and demonized. Therefore, not being a ‘real’ person, but a ‘meta’ person makes it discountable as not really real. How managerial, a tie as we say in the factory. The frosting of highlights courtesy of Photoshop adds to the masking. Once a male is delivered to the omniscient spectator, of course, the photo loses reference. The antiseptic cleanliness of the whole scene, yuk!

The idea that the bottom photo is a clit: Whoah, u got some klit there woman. But when does a large clit become a small penis? These and other intersex problems …

Hanger-On: Just because people are aware of problems, it doesn’t mean that it’s redundant to talk about them. It’s this kind of thinking that creates a lot of the problems we see today. Notably, I’m the only woman on this thread willing to take an unqualified position against this advertisment.

Hanger-On: Just because people are aware of problems, it doesn’t mean that it’s redundant to talk about them. It’s this kind of thinking that creates a lot of the problems we see today. Notably, I’m the only woman on this thread willing to take an unqualified position against this advertisment.

Hanger-On: Just because people are aware of problems, it doesn’t mean that it’s redundant to talk about them. It’s this kind of thinking that creates a lot of the problems we see today. Notably, I’m the only woman on this thread willing to take an unqualified position against this advertisment.

As a rhetorical gesture, consider the following. This photo represents a masculinist mentality similar to the Taliban, whereas the Taliban wish to position women as covered and powerless, the moneyed masculinists wish to position women as undressed and powerless. Pithy.

As a rhetorical gesture, consider the following. This photo represents a masculinist mentality similar to the Taliban, whereas the Taliban wish to position women as covered and powerless, the moneyed masculinists wish to position women as undressed and powerless. Pithy.